If this is the real list of Executive Orders it doesn't do boo

[PALADIN85020]

I'm sure criminals are now shaking in their boots on this incredibly effective edict that will make it impossible for them to obtain a gun....am I right or not? I mean it's second only as a concept to "gun free zones" that will stop mass shootings.

Good grief, when will the craziness stop????

John

 

[chaparrito]

That link is nice, but it's just a more formalized list that the speech was written from. It is NOT the actual Executive Order. I want to see the actual text. I can read pretty well. I would prefer to make up my own mind free of the slanted filters provided by either left or right leaning "news" outlets. So far I can't find it. Who wants to buy a gun?

 

[GF]

I always figured this would be the way to go to ban a significant amount of guns- "The one that is scary is linking the Social Security information on those disabled."
If your on ANY part of the government payroll, as in SS, disability or pension and they withheld your funds until your firearms were produced, it would be an effective ploy.
Granddad's shotgun might not mean as much to a man with a hungry family.

GF

 

[Whitwabit]

I don't think the technology is there for this to be done any time soon .. its not like unlocking your phone with your finger print .. and congress would have to pass laws for that to be required .. and there are 10's of millions of guns out there right now in circulation and in safes ..

don't think that will happen with the congress we have now ..

Here is what might be the Trojan Horse in an otherwise toothless puff piece:

This is the first step to requiring that all guns sold can only be fired by the person to whom they "belong."

 

[JcMack]

Part of the '94 "AW" ban was a tangential suggestion that a "safe gun" be developed that could only be fired by the registered owner. As I recall several major companies (even S&W) looked in to it and prototypes, at least on paper, were looked into. Magnetic or key code devices like finger rings were tried. Fortunately the righteous fervor over "AW's" died down over the years and the safe gun idea went the way of the DODO.
Can you imagination a Circuit designed and built in China, inserted into a gun made in the Philippines actually working?

 

[wheelgunguy]

I'm wondering how long it'll be before the Internet Investigation Center of the ATF starts watching firearm forum classifieds for people in the business of selling firearms.

As stated in the Whitehouse "fact" sheet, it is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $250,000 in fines and can include selling as little as 2 guns with other factors.

The way the powers that be define these very vague conditions and their enforcement will determine if as the OP states "Does or doesn't do boo".

 

[moralem]

So is it a crime to violate an Executive Order? If it is not a law then what is it that makes violating punishable by arrest and imprisonment? We have lost our way and sight of our core values as a nation. I may move to a third world nation where I can declare myself a rebel or pirate and own any weapon I want......

 

[DWalt]

It's NOT an executive order. It's an executive action. I am not sure if the EA actually changes the wording of the BATFE regulations or not. I think it doesn't but merely mandates more stringent enforcement.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I'm wondering how long it'll be before the Internet Investigation Center of the ATF starts watching firearm forum classifieds for people in the business of selling firearms.

In light of what I am given to know about these things, it takes a really egregious flaunting of the FFL requirement, along with a complaint, and it helps if a gun sold is used in a crime. Before prosecution, the intended defendant always gets a cease and desist warning, unless the investigation starts when a gun is used in a crime. Then, the bar is raised a little higher . . .

 

[DWalt]

Sooner or later someone will be arrested by BATFE, and then a court test of what is/is not the definition of being a dealer can proceed. Suit cannot be brought unless there is a plaintiff having "status." Same would be true in order to bring a suit on any other of our President's dictates.

 

[TTSH]

I am not sure if the EA actually changes the wording of the BATFE regulations or not. I think it doesn't but merely mandates more stringent enforcement.

This is a very key point. I'm still trying to figure it out myself.

If the wording doesn't change, all I see here is a potentially more vigorous enforcement of the regs... at least temporarily... and probably not even that if past performance is any indication of future performance.

But if the words are going to be rewritten to support the thinly-veiled threats contained in the EA, then all bets are off. Until we see what those new words will say, we are all just speculating about how it might affect us.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Sooner or later someone will be arrested by BATFE, and then a court test of what is/is not the definition of being a dealer can proceed. Suit cannot be brought unless there is a plaintiff having "status." Same would be true in order to bring a suit on any other of our President's dictates.

The rules haven't changed. The threshold for being a dealer is not set in stone. It's similar to what Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography in 1964: " . . . but I know it when I see it . . ."

If you need an example, here's a recent one (2015) . . .

Poplar Bluff Brothers Sentenced for Illegally Dealing in Firearms

More detail about the investigation:

Rushes indicted for illegally selling firearm

 

[the ringo kid]

Hey. Let's look at this objectively. Hiring more people to do checks under existing rules isn't a bad idea. It speeds up your wait at the counter when you buy a gun. Secondly, spending more on mental health isn't bad. We have way to many crazy people on this country. If we could keep guns away from crazy people it would be good for all of us.

But WHOM gets to decide who's crazy? and based on who's criteria? Otherwise, hell no and I'd be against it.

 

[Muss Muggins]

But WHOM gets to decide who's crazy? and based on who's criteria? Otherwise, hell no and I'd be against it.

Exactly . . . The standard we have now is fair enough, although there are some even on this forum who would prohibit those who "don't look right" from possessing and carrying firearms.

 

[the ringo kid]

Exactly . . . The standard we have now is fair enough, although there are some even on this forum who would prohibit those who "don't look right" from possessing and carrying firearms.

Exactly my point. I don't want someone with the same insane anti-gun and anti-2nd Amendment beliefs( like the surgeon general has) having any say-so over anyone. He's already foamed at the mouth over the idea, and the power his definitions could have.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Time to shut this down
Getting a little rant like

 

[handejector]

What I don't get is if you would need a ffl to sell for profit or a side business, last I knew you couldn't get anything but a c&r ffl without a retail storefront anymore? I didn't think they would issue a (01) ffl to a home based business? (But existing ones were grandfathered)

That is a common misconception.
I know many people who have obtained FFLs for a home based business in recent years.
You DO have to be able to meey ALL requirements for running a business at that location, like meeting zoning codes and being able to get a business license. You will have to get a sales tax account.

Time to shut this down
Getting a little rant like

I don't see much ranting, but I don't see much substance either.